Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

How often does Interpol get involved in sex crimes cases? Specifically, I'm wondering if this is common practice, or if it's only common practice when the suspect is as famous/meddling/troublesome-to-xyz-government as Julian Assange.

This is a guy operating with the deliberate intention of pissing most the governments of the entire western world off.While high-minded, it's not a very smart move if you intend on having a long, healthy and happy life

Spreading rumors of sexual crime (predator, pedo, deviancy, etc.) is standard policy against street people and homeless people. Any question about a new homeless person, asked of any ten other homeless people, will usually attract one to four respondants,"Don't know who that person is. I heard they might be a sex offender. $So_and_so said they heard that there are some new pedophiles around." It is nearly standard policy to run the pedo/predator line against any new people on the street and, if they so much as bat an eye, run them down with it.

Julian Assange is free to have a beer with me on the sidewalk any day! I'll even buy.

His lawyer asked for them to interview him before he left on a planned trip and they refused. He then asked to make sure it was okay for him to leave the country and they said it was fine. He wasn't trying to dictate the terms, but rather to be proactive about it. There's a world of difference between the two. They don't get to dictate how he lives his life either. He isn't even a Swedish citizen, and the women in question agreed to having had consensual (at the time, which is all that should matter) sex. What more do you want? He is being treated differently, and we all know why.

It's one thing to poke at governments. No one is ever happy with their government. In fact, it's pretty standard to have something bad to say about government and it all gets washed away and forgotten in a short time because there's always a fresh new stink pile being created to distract us from the previous stink pile we all got pissed off about. It's almost fun at times. But when Wikileaks says it is releasing secret data from banks? Well, THOSE are the people who run this planet. There are no election turn-overs or parties to choose from. It's just a bunch of men in dark suits controlling the money supply for the whole world. I think it's about time Assange seeks asylum in China. The bankers are a LOT more serious than governments and politics.

The scope / context of the crime is different. If you read the list again, you will realize that all of those crimes involve large numbers of victims. They are also large scale crimes that have a lot of moving parts and are multi-faceted.

While rape is a serious crime, it is not something that falls within the scope of Interpol's jurisdiction.

As an aside, I find it amusing that Interpol don't have a photo of Assange [google.com] for the Wanted Notice. I can't turn on the news without seeing his face, but they list his image as "Not Available".

Worse, they're encounters that were consensual then turned non-consensual later when the women he was sleeping with met each other. Which is why the charges were completely dropped at one point as it turned out that you can't declare sex rape ex post facto, it's either rape at the time or it's not. It's not like one of those corner cases where somebody's not able to consent for one reason or another.

One woman said Assange ignored her appeals to stop when the condom broke.

I'd like to hear a better explanation for that one. Maybe all the girls I've been with have been completely out of touch with their bodies, but there is no way any of them could tell if the condom broke until afterwards.

There are instances where contributing factors make it less "he said/she said". For instance, if someone is so blindingly drunk that they can't stand on their own, it becomes fairly obvious to onlookers. And even if they say yes, when they're that drunk, they're too drunk to give consent.

Now, I don't know enough to form a firm opinion about the Assange accusations, and think they're pretty shaky in the first place. But in a general general discussion about rape, if a condom breaks I think it's pretty reasonable of a girl to say,"Whoa wait stop!" and for her to expect you to stop. If you ignore her, now it turns from something consensual to you doing something to her that she doesn't want. In that situation if someone kept going, wouldn't you call that rape?

Haha, nice misogyny. "Women are lying when they say they don't want it, unless they physically attack someone who is likely larger and stronger than they are, in a position that often invites violence."

Look up the local rape/crime statistics in your neighborhood. How much of those investigations do you think lead to a SUSPECT that has left the area? How many do you see on the FBI or Interpol wanted list? How many SUSPECTS do you see on the local wanted list at your police office? Unless you killed somebody or a suspected serial rapist you simply don't end up on those lists.

"I gave him the money as a gift, but then I regretted it, and said no once, and he didn't give me the money back immediately, therefore he's a thief". Does that make sense to you?

"I went to his house, and then I wanted to leave, and I told him to open the door once, and he didn't, therefore he kidnapped me. Well, no, I didn't try to open the door for myself, and no, he didn't tie me or restrain me, actually I am not sure the door was locked, i didn't try to open it, but it's still kidnapping". Bullshit.

If there was no struggle, and no clear sign of threat/coercion, there is no rape.

No, it's not unreasonable. They turned down doing an interview by video camera, because if the questioning should warrant an arrest, there would no way to arrest him over video conferencing. This is entirely reasonable.

If the warrant was issued for questioning, then its entirely unreasonable that he be required to travel when a perfectly reasonable substitute exists. Video conferencing would provide prosecutors with both both audio and video they could record. Only if they decide to formally press charges do they need his presence.

Simply put, it appears that the prosecutor is attempting to avoid the need to show evidence or extradition.

Perhaps because our government is accountable to us. We pay their bills. They are our employees, not the other way around. If we want to check in to see what is really going on and they get caught with their pants down, who's fault is that? It's not Assange's fault that our secretary of state is spying on our UN allies no matter how much they spin it.

The police would (possibly) want to give away their hand, giving him a chance to run, while not knowing exactly where, or even which country, Assange is located in, why again?

Because they have the choice of questioning him or not. So why would they choose to not question him when he offered and was there in person? Why would they choose to not question him remotely when he offered? Why have they demanded that he return at his expense to face charges he doesn't think are valid and has done all he can to accommodate them?

Usually, you do have an obligation to assist in a police investigation. You don't have to incriminate yourself, but you can't lie to them, or outright evade being brought in for questioning.

He's not evading them. He talked to them before he left and they know where he is and could show up there at any time. They choose to not question him and instead harass him with legal maneuvering. Why?

No, it's not unreasonable. They turned down doing an interview by video camera, because if the questioning should warrant an arrest, there would no way to arrest him over video conferencing. This is entirely reasonable.

This is unreasonable and inconsistent. First if there is no way to arrest him if they decide it is needed after interviewing him then what is this international arrest warrant? They seem to think it is possible to arrest him BEFORE they have even interviewed him.

Secondly how is it reasonable to expect someone to attend police questioning at considerable expense to themselves? He has not yet been found guilty of a crime or even charged with a crime. If they offer to cover his travel expenses then fine but to expect him to pay them himself is not reasonable just to satisfy their curiosity during an investigation, especially after they have already interviewed him and told him that he was free to leave the country.

Finally why don't the Swedish police send the interviewer to the UK (assuming that is where he is)? There is a good deal of cooperation between EU police and I've heard of many cases on the news where UK police have visited other European countries to interview and collect evidence for cases based back in the UK. If he is willing to cooperate, as he claims, then what is the problem?

I have no idea whether or not he is guilty of what he is accused but the Swedish authorities seem to be behaving in a completely unreasonable manner.

Are you kidding me? One of them is a right-wing feminist (yeah, weird) who has been outspoken about how woman should use rape accusations to destroy man.

Unless you have a source, you should not post unverified information like that.

Here you have her seven step model for legal revenge [google.com] blog post, translated from Swedish by Google Translate. She deleted it when the media circus started but because there were so many ways to find it anyway (Google cache, way back machine, cached RSS-feeds etc) she "undeleted" the post after a while.

if she regrets it in the morning she can then claim it was rape, on the grounds that you had sex while her judgement was too impaired by the alcohol to consent.

OTOH, she cannot tell the judge she was too drunk to know what she was doing if she picks the car keys and drives it.

WTF? Drinking is supposed to require judgement for one act and not for another? If she's afraid of rape, then she should have a non-drinking designated chaperone with her, who will take her home when she's too drunk to use her judgement.

Make sure you have a signed consent form, and two witnesses. It may seem a bit odd for witnesses to be in the room the whole time, but it'll protect you against future litigation. At least they can run the cameras for you.